TASM made $750 million worldwide, which is about half of what The Avengers made. Domestic money isn't that more important than foreign money. A studio spends lots of money on advertisement over here in NA too, sometimes even more than they do overseas. There have also been cases where movies bombed in the US but the studios were saved financially due to money from overseas. There are also places overseas that don't require any more advertisement than in the US. For example, Spider-Man is almost or just as big in Japan as he is over here. But for the sake of argument though, let's assume that that is true. Even then, 623 divided by 262 is about 2.4, which is still almost about half of what The Avengers did. That is still quite impressive. You also have to consider that TASM had a handicap while TA didn't. TASM had to carry the burden of being a reboot, of being the first Spider-Man film after one that left a bad taste in people's mouths not too that long ago, as well as the burden of coming out in the same summer as 2 movies that have been hyped for a long time and have been part of an already established franchise (Avengers and TDKR). When you consider those factors working against TASM, the amount it did is even more impressive. Look at how much the average Spider-Man movie makes when it doesn't have those factors there (TASM 2 will probably do more as well).

Technically, there isn't that huge of a competition between Marvel and Sony. Both studios have came out and said that they have a good relationship. Second, money used for marketing is often an expense. It is money that studios invest to promote the movie in hope that the movie and its related products do well (box office, DVD sales, any movie related merchandise, etc.). Third, Marvel makes a good amount of money from the merchandising as well. It wouldn't be a smart move for them either to hinder Spider-Man merchandise which leads to hindering Spider-Man money in favor of Captain America money. Fourth, Marvel handles the Spider-Man advertising just as much as Sony does and as proven by the advertising from last year, they made sure to advertise the crap out of the film to the point where it almost spoiled the whole film for us much like how they pull the same BS every year with whatever MCU movie they make. Heck, the fact that TASM came out the same summer as Marvel's biggest crown jewel (The Avengers) didn't really seem to stop them from bombarding us with advertisement left and right.

almost is not half, spiderman 3 made 890 million worldwide and being a reboot was an INTENTIONAL burden that sony placed on its own film, which did backfire. 262 million is hardly impressive when when you look at where tasm sits all time in relation the the first 3 movies (#62, sm1, 14, sm2 21 and sm3 26) what movie has gotten a sequel that has bombed DOMESTICALLY and had success overseas? investments are made with the hope of a return, the advertising for tasm was from sony, and that was before disney took over merchandising rights, so i doubt VERY seriously that disney paid for any of that? and if sony is NOT willing to play ball with disney than it would be a very smart move to not promote tasm2. fox is unwilling to play ball and they get dick for advertising the x-men movies, merchandise and tie-ins cover advertising and without them studios LOSE money.

Godzilla fans have always wanted one thing and one thing only: a WELL done big budget Godzilla movie, and sorry but that abortion of a film that master hack Emmerich made was not even close, hell, it wasn't even Godzilla. it was a big mutated pussy iguana. Godzilla doing 400-500 million domestically is NOT out of the question, and comparisons to King Kong are B.S. the Kong movie was a straight re-make with updated effects, Edwards movie will NOT re-tell the original story, it is going to be a fresh take. now overseas numbers could easily eclipse 600 million, if the movie is THAT good. Godzilla's popularity goes without saying. one google search will prove that and Godzilla has his own star in Hollywood and unless i'm mistaken he is the only NON-American fictional character to receive such an honor.

Fan following does not equate to box office smash. Do you think Godzilla is more widely known than Superman? Do you think Man of Steel will even come close to approaching $1 billion?

I agree "that abortion of a film" in 1999 was absolutely terrible. Just like Batman and Robin, a movie whose reboot suffered substantially because of it's failures. And Superman Returns a movie whose reboot is bound to suffer because of its failures (we can follow up on this in a month).

And Godzilla (unlike King Kong) doesn't even have the benefit of a famous director. He is a nobody. Nor for that matter, a single A list actor. Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe eh...? B+ list at best.

Now I'm quite certain the movie will be good, possibly even great. But over $1 billion? You sticking with that answer?

almost is not half, spiderman 3 made 890 million worldwide and being a reboot was an INTENTIONAL burden that sony placed on its own film, which did backfire. 262 million is hardly impressive when when you look at where tasm sits all time in relation the the first 3 movies (#62, sm1, 14, sm2 21 and sm3 26) what movie has gotten a sequel that has bombed DOMESTICALLY and had success overseas? investments are made with the hope of a return, the advertising for tasm was from sony, and that was before disney took over merchandising rights, so i doubt VERY seriously that disney paid for any of that? and if sony is NOT willing to play ball with disney than it would be a very smart move to not promote tasm2. fox is unwilling to play ball and they get dick for advertising the x-men movies, merchandise and tie-ins cover advertising and without them studios LOSE money.

Backfired in what way? The movie still made a heck of a lot of money, more than even the first 2 Iron Man films, and got good critical praise. It did make a little less than the previous ones but that is irrelevant when it comes to reboots. The general rule about reboots is that the success of the second film in the reboot is always what determines whether or not the reboot was a success in the first place because the first film always carries the burden of being a reboot and of being the first film after a bad film with the same character. This was the same case with Batman Begins and will be the case with Man of Steel. The purpose of the first film was to reestablish the character on the big screen. It will be the success of the second film that makes or breaks the franchise, much like how TDK was always meant to be the determining film in whether or not the Batman reboot was a success in the first place.

Disney took over the merchandising rights back in 2010 when Sony first announced they would reboot Spidey. Sony sold those rights and the TV rights to Spidey to get an extension on the movie rights. Marvel/Disney doesn't have the merchandising rights for Fox's properties, so the horrendous advertisement is almost entirely on Fox. Sony not being willing to play ball with Marvel/Disney at this point is irrelevant because it's been shown that they are very willing to do just that (Oscorp Tower cameo in Avengers, the ESU shirt in Item 47, the Oscorp logo in the Iron Man 3 game, both studios coming out and stating they have a good relationship, etc.).

Fan following does not equate to box office smash. Do you think Godzilla is more widely known than Superman? Do you think Man of Steel will even come close to approaching $1 billion?

I agree "that abortion of a film" in 1999 was absolutely terrible. Just like Batman and Robin, a movie whose reboot suffered substantially because of it's failures. And Superman Returns a movie whose reboot is bound to suffer because of its failures (we can follow up on this in a month).

And Godzilla (unlike King Kong) doesn't even have the benefit of a famous director. He is a nobody. Nor for that matter, a single A list actor. Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe eh...? B+ list at best.

Now I'm quite certain the movie will be good, possibly even great. But over $1 billion? You sticking with that answer?

all of what you just said could be applied to tasm, who is marc webb? garfield, stone, leary, ifans, a-listers? sure it had sheen and fields, but even those two are hardly considered a-list anymore.

Backfired in what way? The movie still made a heck of a lot of money, more than even the first 2 Iron Man films, and got good critical praise. It did make a little less than the previous ones but that is irrelevant when it comes to reboots. The general rule about reboots is that the success of the second film in the reboot is always what determines whether or not the reboot was a success in the first place because the first film always carries the burden of being a reboot and of being the first film after a bad film with the same character. This was the same case with Batman Begins and will be the case with Man of Steel. The purpose of the first film was to reestablish the character on the big screen. It will be the success of the second film that makes or breaks the franchise, much like how TDK was always meant to be the determining film in whether or not the Batman reboot was a success in the first place.

Disney took over the merchandising rights back in 2010 when Sony first announced they would reboot Spidey. Sony sold those rights and the TV rights to Spidey to get an extension on the movie rights. Marvel/Disney doesn't have the merchandising rights for Fox's properties, so the horrendous advertisement is almost entirely on Fox. Sony not being willing to play ball with Marvel/Disney at this point is irrelevant because it's been shown that they are very willing to do just that (Oscorp Tower cameo in Avengers, the ESU shirt in Item 47, the Oscorp logo in the Iron Man 3 game, both studios coming out and stating they have a good relationship, etc.).

the general rule about reboots???? and you site one example!, hardly a rule.

disney took over merch rights 4th quarter 2011, by then tasm was all but a rap, and the ad campaign and merchandise was locked. so irrelevant. fox owns movie rights only. nothing else. and please give one legitimate example of a movie bombing domestically and succeeding overseas that got a sequel? and until spiderman appears in avengers 2. i reserve judgement.

all of what you just said could be applied to tasm, who is marc webb? garfield, stone, leary, ifans, a-listers? sure it had sheen and fields, but even those two are hardly considered a-list anymore.

Correct. Thusly, ASM had the worst box office numbers of any Spider-Man film to date. And well under $1 billion. The sequel (aka Godzilla's competition) on the other hand, does not suffer from any of the bolded and will likely make at least as much as its predecessor. Includes Cooper, Foxx and Giamatti. Meaning when Godzilla comes out two weeks later,

Correct. Thusly, ASM had the worst box office numbers of any Spider-Man film to date. And well under $1 billion. The sequel (aka Godzilla's competition) on the other hand, does not suffer from any of the bolded and will likely make at least as much as its predecessor. Includes Cooper, Foxx and Giamatti. Meaning when Godzilla comes out two weeks later,

you said it:"ASM had the worst box office numbers of any Spider-Man film to date"

but you forget something, GODZILLA is the movie, GODZILLA is the draw. tasm will need big names to carry it, GODZILLA IS the big name....and by the way, Commodus dies in the end.

the general rule about reboots???? and you site one example!, hardly a rule.

Every single reboot based on a Marvel/DC character has had that happen to them so far. Name me one reboot that didn't suffer the reboot curse. The second film in the franchise is always the one that determines if the reboot was a success in the first place.

Plus, Sony has even come out and said that TASM did better than they thought it would.

Quote:

disney took over merch rights 4th quarter 2011, by then tasm was all but a rap, and the ad campaign and merchandise was locked. so irrelevant. fox owns movie rights only. nothing else.

Sony sold the merchandising rights at the start of 2010 to get an extension on the movie rights. And I'm pretty sure Fox does have the merchandising rights.

Quote:

and please give one legitimate example of a movie bombing domestically and succeeding overseas that got a sequel?

See links I posted. They don't bring up any movies specifically but they do disprove your point that domestic money is far more important than worldwide money overall. One part in the first article I linked even says at one point that studios make about 66% of their revenue from overseas.

I can't really think of a movie that was saved overseas and got a sequel but there are a few movies I can name that bombed in the US but made enough money overseas for the studio to get their budget amount back. Dragonball Evolution is an example of this.

Quote:

and until spiderman appears in avengers 2. i reserve judgement.

Fair enough.

Quote:

but you forget something, GODZILLA is the movie, GODZILLA is the draw. tasm will need big names to carry it, GODZILLA IS the big name....and by the way, Commodus dies in the end.

Are you kidding me? You're seriously trying to argue that just the name "Godzilla" alone will draw people into theatres but that the name "Spider-Man" alone won't? Spider-Man is a lot more iconic than Godzilla, though both are really iconic. Godzilla doesn't even have half the draw he used to. Most folks who remember him are adults, the kids won't have reason to come except for the big lizard and explosions. Spider-Man is massive worldwide, and believe it or not insanely so in Japan. Almost as much as Gojira, Supah Sentai, Kamen Rider, etc.

Every single reboot based on a Marvel/DC character has had that happen to them so far. Name me one reboot that didn't suffer the reboot curse. The second film in the franchise is always the one that determines if the reboot was a success in the first place.

and what movies are you talking about????

Plus, Sony has even come out and said that TASM did better than they thought it would.

yes they did, AFTER the movie finished its run, and all the sony fan-boys drank the kool-aid, because sony would never lie.

Sony sold the merchandising rights at the start of 2010 to get an extension on the movie rights. And I'm pretty sure Fox does have the merchandising rights.

See links I posted. They don't bring up any movies specifically but they do disprove your point that domestic money is far more important than worldwide money overall. One part in the first article I linked even says at one point that studios make about 66% of their revenue from overseas.

thats not answering the question, its re-directing

I can't really think of a movie that was saved overseas and got a sequel but there are a few movies I can name that bombed in the US but made enough money overseas for the studio to get their budget amount back. Dragonball Evolution is an example of this.

not the question

Fair enough.

Are you kidding me? You're seriously trying to argue that just the name "Godzilla" alone will draw people into theatres but that the name "Spider-Man" alone won't? Spider-Man is a lot more iconic than Godzilla, though both are really iconic. Godzilla doesn't even have half the draw he used to. Most folks who remember him are adults, the kids won't have reason to come except for the big lizard and explosions. Spider-Man is massive worldwide, and believe it or not insanely so in Japan. Almost as much as Gojira, Supah Sentai, Kamen Rider, etc.

ALMOST as much is not the same. still trying to figure out the quote thing....sorry

Discussing Q4 2011 results, the CEO of Walt Disney, Robert A. Iger, revealed a small recent marketing transaction with Sony Pictures, who of course houses Spider-Man and his much-anticipated reboot; The Amazing Spider-Man. Evidently, there's still no cinematic connection with Disney's Marvel Studios, but could this be a step closer? Anyhow, check out the excerpt below, via Seeking Alpha, while the CEO also elaborates on the current and future success of Marvel Studios.
Read more at http://www.**************.com/fansit...I8RE3RtRTqf.99

What's your point? He is still very popular in Japan and Japan is only a small fraction of the global box office money. Everywhere else outside of Japan, Spider-Man s**ts out Godzilla and eats him for breakfast when it comes to popularity and iconic image.

What's your point? He is still very popular in Japan and Japan is only a small fraction of the global box office money. Everywhere else outside of Japan, Spider-Man s**ts out Godzilla and eats him for breakfast when it comes to popularity and iconic image.

i like you, you make me laugh

this isn't a dick measuring contest, i am simply stating that next year Godzilla will make more coin than tasm2, and if i am wrong, i will say so without having to be proven wrong

I think we will get a joint production by ASM4, or at least a blatant tie-in indicating the same universe. I think Sony will have to go big by then, and they will need more of an ensemble, big budget movie. They can't keep recycling the same villains. I don't know if Garfield will return, but its possible they can get him signed on for another couple of films.